Saturday, April 19, 2014

Spending money on experiences, rather than items, increases happiness

Saturday, April 19, 2014 by: Julie WilsonTags: money, life experiences, happiness(NaturalNews) The glitz and glam of Hollywood as portrayed in Western culture unforgivingly showcases a standard of living that most Americans will never achieve. These unrealistic lifestyles projected onto the public mainly through television feature material objects like gorgeous condos, fancy cars, designer clothes and... money, and the importance of having it.

While this illusion is being projected onto the public through TV shows like The Real Housewives of New York City, or Keeping up with the Kardashians, CNS Newsreported data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau showing that approximately 86 million private sector workers are supporting over 150 million Americans who are receiving some type of government benefit.

Clearly, there is a disconnect between reality and the influences presented by unrealistic societal norms.

It's no wonder that a recent study conducted by San Francisco State University found that people are more inclined to spend money on material items rather than personal experiences in which memories are created. Even more interestingly, people are aware that creating memories outweighs material purchases in the satisfaction department; however, they still choose material items.

"People actually do know, and accurately predict, that life experiences will make them happier," said Ryan Howell, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at SF State.

"What they really underestimate is how much monetary value they will get out of a life experience. Even though they're told experiences will make them happier and they know experiences will make them happier, they still perceive material items as being a better value."

Television, movies, social media and celebrities are all vehicles for advertisement. These advertisers have one objective, and it's a financial one. Instead of portraying quality time spent with family, expensive material objects are viewed as sexy and a must-have, even if it means going into debt to obtain it.

Howell suggests that material items give people a sense of satisfaction simply because they're tangible and usually have a set price. Memories, however, are much more difficult to measure with money. "We naturally associate economic value with stuff. I bought this car, it's worth $8,000," said Howell.

"We have a hard time estimating the economic value we would place on our memories."

The study included surveyed individuals both before and after they made a purchase. "Prior to the purchase, respondents said they believed a life experience would make them happier but a material item would be a better use of their money," reported Science Daily. "After the purchase, however, respondents reported that life experiences not only made them happier but were also the better value."

"There were just huge underestimates in how much value people expected to get from their purchase," Howell said. "It's almost like people feel they will get no economic value from their life experiences and therefore they feel this tension in spending money on them."

During an additional experiment, subjects were asked to prioritize value "when making a purchase gravitated toward material items, while those asked to prioritize happiness chose experiences."

Of course, happiness means something different to everyone, but it's an emotion or feeling that should be felt by all, and how you achieve it should come from within and not what you see on TV.

One of the biggest influences of happiness is your exposure to the great outdoors. A study conducted in the UK by the American Chemical Society found that those who spent more time in nature were far happier than city-dwellers. In addition to feeling happy, energy levels are boosted and our immune systems strengthen, resulting in an increase in one's feelings of vitality and well-being.

"Nature is fuel for the soul. Often when we feel depleted we reach for a cup of coffee, but research suggests a better way to get energized is to connect with nature," said the study's lead author, Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester.

On any given night, many of us are desperate for sleep, unable to switch off. Richard Wiseman looks at some solutions

When you are sleep-deprived, you struggle to think straight. Photograph: Tony Stone

Increased workloads and 24-hour access to the internet have created a world that rarely sleeps. The statistics are staggering. One 2011 survey by the Mental Health Foundation found that more than 30% of Britons suffer from insomnia or another serious sleep problem. You might think that not getting a good night's sleep simply leaves you a bit grumpy; in reality, the effects can be far more damaging.

The good news is that researchers show a fair consensus about the best methods to combat sleeplessness. Here are eight of their top tips.

Avoid blue light

If you must use your smartphone, tablet or computer late in the evening, turn down the brightness. Photograph: Aaron Tilley for the Guardian

Although any type of light stops you feeling sleepy, light towards the blue end of the spectrum is especially potent. Computer screens, tablets, smartphones, flat-screen televisions and LED lighting all emit blue light. If you must use your smartphone, tablet or computer late in the evening, turn down the brightness and ensure the device is at least 30cm from your eyes. If you want to use a night light, choose one with a dim red bulb, because red light tends not to suppress the production of melatonin.

Eat smart

Don’t be tempted by a nightcap. Photograph: Aaron Tilley for the Guardian

Breathe lavender

In 2008, psychologist Chris Alford, from the University of the West of England in Bristol, sprinkled either lavender or odourless almond oil on the bedclothes of female insomniacs, and discovered that the lavender helped improve the quality of their sleep. Try a lavender diffuser or oil to ensure that your room smells of sleep.

Jump around

To maximise your chances of nodding off, you need to do at least two-and-a-half hours of moderate aerobic activity (fast walking, for example), or at least an hour-and-a-quarter of more vigorous exercise (such as running), each week. Research also shows that working out around six hours before your bedtime allows your body to calm down enough to be ready for rest. If you don't enjoy pounding the pavement, recent research suggests yoga and tai chi will help you get a good night's sleep.

Stay awake

People who fail to get a full night's sleep score significantly lower on tests of logic and vocabulary. Photograph: Aaron Tilley for the Guardian

Medical researcher Niall Broomfield from the University of Glasgow investigated whether reverse psychology could be used to help people sleep. He assembled two groups of volunteers and monitored their sleep for two weeks. One group was asked to spend each night trying to stay awake for as long as possible, while the other group didn't receive any special instructions. Those trying to stay awake felt less anxious at bedtime and reported falling asleep quicker. This may be due to a lifting of anxiety about getting off to sleep. If you try this, remember that you have to rely on the power of your mind. You may keep your eyes open, but no reading, watching television or moving about allowed.

Keep warm

Ensure your bedroom is not too hot or too cold: most sleep scientists recommend just over 18C (65F). With a normal amount of bedclothes, your body remains thermally neutral at this temperature, so you don't have to create heat by shivering or cool down by sweating. But beware of cold feet. If you have bad circulation, your chilly extremities will keep you awake. If this is the case, wear a pair of socks to bed.

Tire your brain

Work by Stephen Haynes from Southern Illinois University suggests thatmaking your brain tired will help you nod off. Haynes asked both insomniacs and good sleepers to carry out moderately difficult mental arithmetic tasks as they tried to fall asleep.

Those without any sleep-related problems took longer than usual to nod off, while the insomniacs did indeed get to sleep quicker. If you are not good with numbers, try a word game: think of a category (eg "countries" or "fruit and vegetables") and come up with an example of that category for each letter of the alphabet.

Get up

If you wake for more than about 20 minutes during the night, most sleep scientists recommend getting out of bed. Photograph: Aaron Tilley for the Guardian

If you have suddenly woken up because you have remembered something that you need to do the next day, simply make a note of it and try to go back to sleep. However, if you wake for more than about 20 minutes during the night, most sleep scientists recommend getting out of bed and doing some form of non-stimulating activity. Whatever you decide to do, avoid bright lights and computer screens.

• Richard Wiseman is the author of Night School (Macmillan).

And here are some products, gadgets, techniques that could help

Products:Bodyism Serenity This night-time milkshake is designed to send you straight off to sleep. About an hour before bed, whisk one scoop of this powdered blend of camomile, hops, oats, liquorice root and rosemary into a glass of milk and drink. The ingredients reduce the body's anxiety levels and increase your sense of calm. £50 for 30 days' supply, from uk.spacenk.com and bodyism.com

Aromatherapy Associates Deep Relax bath and shower oilFragranced with vetivert, chamomile and sandalwood, this oil is often described as being "better than sleeping pills". Simply add to your bath or apply to the skin in the shower. Or add a few drops to a hanky and place inside your pillowcase. £40, from aromatherapyassociates.com

Valerian No one wants to become dependent on pills, but valerian is a herbal sedative that has been shown to help you get to sleep faster and enjoy a better quality of sleep. Avoid alcohol when taking valerian, and don't use it long-term. Ask your GP if you have any questions. Vitabiotics valerian root extract, £9.95 for 400mg (30 tablets), boots.com

Gadgets: Hypnosleep A downloadable podcast to play when you're in bed and ready to sleep, Hypnosleep is the brainchild of hypnotherapist Tim Smale, who helped Alastair Campbell get into the right frame of mind to train for his long charity runs. £9.99, from mymindworks.co.uk

Sound Asleep pillow If you want to listen to your headphones but find them uncomfortable when you get your head down, this pillow contains a speaker that won't disturb anyone around you. Listen to a meditation track, an audiobook or white noise. £13.99, from amazon.co.uk

FitBit Flex This wristband not only measures how much activity you're doing over the day, but also tracks your sleep patterns at night by recording your movements and your pulse rate. It plugs into your computer's USB port to enable you to see how much shut-eye you're actually getting. The FitBit Flex also has a silent vibrate alarm, which means you can wake up without waking a dozing partner. From £69.99,amazon.co.uk

Techniques:Combination therapy A mixture of acupuncture, massage and hypnotherapy designed to help lower the body's levels of cortisol – a hormone produced when the body is under stress. £100 for an hour-long treatment, twentytwotraining.com

Yoga There are at least 10 asanas (body positions) in yoga that tackle sleeplessness. Online tutorials show you everything from forward bends and gentle spinal twists to lying with your legs up the wall.

Meditation Many techniques for triumphing over sleeplessness revolve around quieting the mind and slowing the heart rate. Meditation is no different and asks us to bring our attention to our breath rather than obsessing about our lack of sleep.

“Ironically, the authors cite Dr. Ahlbom’s work to dismiss Dr. Hardell’s research; yet, Dr. Ahlbom was the scientist with the undisclosed conflict of interest. Dr. Ahlbom opted not to attend the IARC working group meeting after WHO informed him he could not chair the epidemiology subgroup after a journalist “outed” him for his undisclosed associations with the cellular industry.”-Joel Moskowitz, PhD, UC Berkeley

Please read Dr. Joel Moskowitz’s of UC Berkeley’s comments below on the recent paper by Weideman, Boerner and Repacholi, which seems to be intended to discredit the opinion of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of Radiofrequency Radiation as a “Class 2B Potential Carcinogen”. In fact, since the classification in May 2011, more evidence has accumulated justifying a “Carcinogen” classification. The recent paper should be taken with a grain of salt and appreciation for non-disclosed industry associations.

***

Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?

In May 2011, the International Agency on Cancer in Research (IARC) issued an official statement concluding that cell phone usage was “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There have been considerable doubts that non-experts and experts alike fully understood what IARC’s categorization actually meant, as “possibly carcinogenic” can be interpreted in many ways. The present study is based on an online survey indicating that both the characterization of the probability of carcinogenicity, as well as the description of the risk increase given in the IARC press release, was mostly misunderstood by study participants. Respondents also greatly overestimated the magnitude of the potential risk. Our study results showed that IARC needs to improve their scientific communications.

Using Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey consisting of 13 questions was conducted in April 2012. Information about this on-going survey and the opportunity to participate was made available to all 27,000 students of the University of Innsbruck in Austria. A total of 2,013 students with a mean age of 24.5 years participated, with 66% of the respondents being female and 34% male. The students were from a wide variety of academic disciplines, and participation was anonymous and voluntary. The survey used parts of the original IARC [2011] press release as stimulus material. Participants were instructed to read the text from the original IARC press release: “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk forglioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use. The IARC [2011] did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (using their phones for 30?min per day over a 10-year period).”

… We asked, “What does a 40% risk increase mean?” and “How many additional cases will suffer from cancer?” Respondents could choose between five answers (1) 1 in 4, (2) 4 in 10, (3) 4 in 100, (4) 1 in 40, and (5) a number >0. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of respondents interpreted a 40% risk increase as 4 in 10. The correct answer depends on the baseline, that is, the normal brain cancer incidence in the population studied. Since IARC does not present any baseline information, a number >0, is the only meaningful answer to the information provided from Text 1. Figure 2 shows that only about 10% of the respondents picked the correct category (N?>?0).

…The relative risk statement should be strengthened by information on the incidence rate expressed as the number of new cases per unit of population per year. Given that the incidence of adult glioma is approximately 4.7 per 100,000 persons a year, a 40% increase in risk would mean an additional 1.9 cases of glioma per 100,000 people each year.

… A good 2B narrative should address the issues of who, why and what follows from the 2B classification. The “who” refers to the need to characterize the authors of the classification. The key issue here is that the credibility of the classification of RF fields depends on trust in the process and in the people who conducted the classification. There should be some concern that there are working group members who are the very researchers assessing the quality of their own studies. This would be a reason for people to question the credibility of the classification. A solution to this credibility issue for IARC could be to more thoroughly determine and account for the various potential conflicts of interest and to search for potential working group members without such conflicts. An example could be to select working group members who are not involved in the EMF field to conduct a truly independent review.

… The Interphone Study noted that: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.” IARC claims this is a positive study according to their definition when the study authors do not. This is a credibility issue. This existing ambiguity in the 2B-evidence base opens IARC’s classification to contrasting interpretations and opinions. From a communications standpoint, it is necessary to clearly and transparently inform about the pro and contra arguments for the classification based on the selected evidence. The other positive study [2009] was clearly demonstrated [2009] to be an outlier compared with the majority of other epidemiological studies. While IARC’s definition of 2B was technically complied with, because two epidemiology studies showed positive results, there is considerable doubt about the interpretation of what is a positive effect.

… The central message of the present study is that IARC needs to improve their current scientific communications, and in doing so, keep within its mandate vis-à-vis its parent WHO. We believe that focusing, for example, on adding a quantitative explanation to verbal probability expressions or using comparisons and narratives could help to ensure that everyone understands the state of the scientific findings and their underlying uncertainty. This may also enable all parties to draw the necessary conclusions for future health policy activities.

Conflicts of interest: The Science Forum EMF, founded by Peter Wiedemann, is a project of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), a member of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres.

***

Comments by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Although this paper makes a few valid points — most laypersons don’t understand the meaning of “possibly carcinogenic” or “40% risk increase” — the real intent of the authors is to undermine the credibility of the IARC working group’s review of radio frequency energy. This letter to the editor is a polemic which argues that the IARC working group should have been composed of members “who are not involved in the EMF field” to avoid conflicts of interest. The authors recommend that scientific review panels be composed of individuals who have no expertise in the specific field of study under review — a rather odd solution to this age-old problem.

Ironically, the authors cite Dr. Ahlbom’s work to dismiss Dr. Hardell’s research; yet, Dr. Ahlbom was the scientist with the undisclosed conflict of interest. Dr. Ahlbom opted not to attend the IARC working group meeting after WHO informed him he could not chair the epidemiology subgroup after a journalist “outed” him for his undisclosed associations with the cellular industry.

The authors failed to discuss the results published in Appendix 2 of the major Interphone paper which finds that after correcting for one of the study biases the 40% risk increase for the heavy cellphone use group becomes an 80% risk increase.

The authors also failed to mention the peer-reviewed research that has been published since the IARC working group was convened in 2011. These more recent studies provide greater evidence of the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation.

Why are the authors of this paper so motivated to dismiss the science and the consensus of the 30-member IARC working group (not counting the member from our National Cancer Institute who walked out of the meeting in protest)? One must wonder whether the authors disclosed all of their conflicts of interests?

–

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.Director, Center for Family and Community HealthSchool of Public Health, University of California, BerkeleyCenter: http://cfch.berkeley.edu

In May, 2011, a working group composed of 31 experts on
electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation convened by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported on
the results of an extensive review of the health effects research. The
committee concluded that radio frequency energy is a Group 2B carcinogen, which means this type of
electromagnetic radiation is possibly cancer-causing in humans.

In arriving at this conclusion, the working group relied heavily
on the results of the Interphone Study, a 13-nation study sponsored by the WHO,
and a series of studies conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden.

The journal Bioelectromagnetics recently
published a "letter to the editor" which questions the 2B
classification (1). Although the letter makes a few valid points — most
laypersons don’t understand the meaning of “possibly carcinogenic” or “40% risk
increase” — the authors' intent seems to be to undermine the credibility of the
IARC working group’s review of the health effects of exposure to radio
frequency energy. In his science blog on mobile phone radiation and
health, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski has called this letter, "A travesty of science."

The letter is a polemic which argues that the IARC working group
should have been composed of members “who are not involved in the EMF field” to
avoid conflicts of interest. The authors recommend that scientific review
panels be composed of individuals who have no expertise in the specific field
of study under review — a rather odd solution to this age-old problem.

Ironically, the authors cite Dr. Ahlbom’s work to dismiss Dr.
Hardell’s research; yet, Dr. Ahlbom was the scientist with the undisclosed
conflict of interest. Dr. Ahlbom opted not to attend the IARC working group
meeting after WHO informed him he could not chair the epidemiology subgroup
after Mona Nilsson, a Swedish investigative journalist “outed” him for his
undisclosed associations with the cellular industry.

The authors failed to discuss the results published in Appendix
2 of the major Interphone study paper which finds that after correcting for one
of the study biases the 40% risk increase for the heavy cellphone use group
becomes an 80% risk increase.

The authors also failed to mention the peer-reviewed research
that has been published since the IARC working group was convened in 2011.
These more recent studies provide greater evidence of the carcinogenicity of
cell phone radiation.

Why are the authors of this paper so motivated to dismiss the
science and the consensus of the 30-member IARC working group (not counting the
member from our National Cancer Institute who walked out of the meeting in
protest)? One must wonder whether the authors disclosed all of their
conflicts of interests?

In May 2011, the International Agency on Cancer in Research
(IARC) issued an official statement concluding that cell phone usage was
“possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There have been considerable doubts that
non-experts and experts alike fully understood what IARC’s categorization
actually meant, as “possibly carcinogenic” can be interpreted in many ways. The
present study is based on an online survey indicating that both the
characterization of the probability of carcinogenicity, as well as the
description of the risk increase given in the IARC press release, was mostly
misunderstood by study participants. Respondents also greatly overestimated the
magnitude of the potential risk. Our study results showed that IARC needs to
improve their scientific communications.

Using Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey consisting
of 13 questions was conducted in April 2012. Information about this on-going
survey and the opportunity to participate was made available to all 27,000
students of the University of Innsbruck in Austria. A total of 2,013 students
with a mean age of 24.5 years participated, with 66% of the respondents being
female and 34% male. The students were from a wide variety of academic
disciplines, and participation was anonymous and voluntary. The survey used
parts of the original IARC [2011] press release as stimulus material.
Participants were instructed to read the text from the original IARC press
release: “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk forglioma,
a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use. The IARC
[2011] did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use
(up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest
category of heavy users (using their phones for 30?min per day over a 10-year
period).”

… We asked, “What does a 40% risk increase mean?” and “How many
additional cases will suffer from cancer?” Respondents could choose between
five answers (1) 1 in 4, (2) 4 in 10, (3) 4 in 100, (4) 1 in 40, and (5) a
number >0. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of respondents interpreted a
40% risk increase as 4 in 10. The correct answer depends on the baseline, that
is, the normal brain cancer incidence in the population studied. Since IARC
does not present any baseline information, a number >0, is the only
meaningful answer to the information provided from Text 1. Figure 2 shows that only
about 10% of the respondents picked the correct category (N?>?0).

…The relative risk statement should be strengthened by
information on the incidence rate expressed as the number of new cases per unit
of population per year. Given that the incidence of adult glioma is
approximately 4.7 per 100,000 persons a year, a 40% increase in risk would mean
an additional 1.9 cases of glioma per 100,000 people each year.

… A good 2B narrative should address the issues of who, why and
what follows from the 2B classification. The “who” refers to the need to
characterize the authors of the classification. The key issue here is that the
credibility of the classification of RF fields depends on trust in the process
and in the people who conducted the classification. There should be some
concern that there are working group members who are the very researchers
assessing the quality of their own studies. This would be a reason for people
to question the credibility of the classification. A solution to this
credibility issue for IARC could be to more thoroughly determine and account
for the various potential conflicts of interest and to search for potential
working group members without such conflicts. An example could be to select
working group members who are not involved in the EMF field to conduct a truly
independent review.

… The Interphone Study noted that: “Overall, no increase in risk
of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were
suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but
biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.” IARC claims this is a
positive study according to their definition when the study authors do not.
This is a credibility issue. This existing ambiguity in the 2B-evidence base
opens IARC’s classification to contrasting interpretations and opinions. From a
communications standpoint, it is necessary to clearly and transparently inform
about the pro and contra arguments for the classification based on the selected
evidence. The other positive study [2009] was clearly demonstrated [2009] to be
an outlier compared with the majority of other epidemiological studies. While
IARC’s definition of 2B was technically complied with, because two epidemiology
studies showed positive results, there is considerable doubt about the
interpretation of what is a positive effect.

… The central message of the present study is that IARC needs to
improve their current scientific communications, and in doing so, keep within
its mandate vis-à-vis its parent WHO. We believe that focusing, for example, on
adding a quantitative explanation to verbal probability expressions or using
comparisons and narratives could help to ensure that everyone understands the
state of the scientific findings and their underlying uncertainty. This may
also enable all parties to draw the necessary conclusions for future health
policy activities.

Conflicts
of interest: The Science Forum EMF, founded by Peter Wiedemann, is a project of
the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), a member of the Helmholtz Association
of German Research Centres.

Its colossal power has worrying implications not only for the health of Europe's digital economy, but for the individual freedom of citizens

'Google is sitting on the entire data trove of humanity like the giant Fafner in The Ring of the Nibelung.' Photograph: Isafmedia

Dear Eric Schmidt,

As you know, I am a great admirer of Google's entrepreneurial success. Google's employees are always extremely friendly to us and to other publishing houses, but we are not communicating with each other on equal terms. How could we? Google doesn't need us. But we need Google. We are afraid of Google. I must state this very clearly and frankly, because few of my colleagues dare do so publicly. And as the biggest among the small, perhaps it is also up to us to be the first to speak out in this debate. You yourself speak of the new power of the creators, owners, and users.

In the long term I'm not so sure about the users. Power is soon followed by powerlessness. And this is precisely the reason why we now need to have this discussion in the interests of the long-term integrity of the digital economy's ecosystem. This applies to competition – not only economic, but also political. As the situation stands, your company will play a leading role in the various areas of our professional and private lives – in the house, in the car, in healthcare, in robotronics. This is a huge opportunity and a no less serious threat. I am afraid that it is simply not enough to state, as you do, that you want to make the world a "better place".

Google lists its own products, from e-commerce to pages from its own Google+ network, higher than those of its competitors, even if these are sometimes of less value for consumers and should not be displayed in accordance with the Google algorithm. It is not even clearly pointed out to the user that these search results are the result of self-advertising. Even when a Google service has fewer visitors than that of a competitor, it appears higher up the page until it eventually also receives more visitors.

You know very well that this would result in long-term discrimination against, and weakening of, any competition, meaning that Google would be able to develop its superior market position still further. And that this would further weaken the European digital economy in particular.

This also applies to the large and even more problematic set of issues concerning data security and data utilisation. Ever since Edward Snowden triggered the NSA affair, and ever since the close relations between major American online companies and the American secret services became public, the social climate – at least in Europe – has fundamentally changed. People have become more sensitive about what happens to their user data. Nobody knows as much about its customers as Google. Even private or business emails are read by Gmail and, if necessary, can be evaluated. You yourself said in 2010: "We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about." This is a remarkably honest sentence. The question is: are users happy with the fact that this information is used not only for commercial purposes – which may have many advantages, yet a number of spooky negative aspects as well – but could end up in the hands of the intelligence services, and to a certain extent already has?

Google is sitting on the entire current data trove of humanity, like the giant Fafner in The Ring of the Nibelung: "Here I lie and here I hold." I hope you are aware of your company's special responsibility. If fossil fuels were the fuels of the 20th century, then those of the 21st century are surely data and user profiles. We need to ask ourselves whether competition can generally still function in the digital age, if data is so extensively concentrated in the hands of one party.

There is a quote from you in this context that concerns me. In 2009 you said: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." The essence of freedom is precisely the fact that I am not obliged to disclose everything that I am doing, that I have a right to confidentiality and, yes, even to secrets; that I am able to determine for myself what I wish to disclose about myself. The individual right to this is what makes a democracy. Only dictatorships want transparent citizens instead of a free press.

Against this background, it greatly concerns me that Google – which hasjust announced the acquisition of drone manufacturer Titan Aerospace – has been seen for some time as being behind a number of planned enormous ships and floating working environments that can cruise and operate in the open ocean. What is the reason for this development? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to find this alarming.

Historically, monopolies have never survived in the long term. Either they have failed as a result of their complacency, which breeds its own success, or they have been weakened by competition – both unlikely scenarios in Google's case. Or they have been restricted by political initiatives.

Another way would be voluntary self-restraint on the part of the winner. Is it really smart to wait until the first serious politician demands the breakup of Google? Or even worse – until the people refuse to follow?

Sincerely yours,

Mathias Döpfner

This is a shortened version of the open letter that appeared on Thursday in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. See the full version here.

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...